Tag Archives: Russia

Post navigation

4international…It is the historical crisis which is driving these relentless attacks on Russia for many reasons but these are the obvious ones

Russia is the home of the first and only workers revolution and the first step by Lenin and Trotsky towards Socialism (a world socialist commonwealth)

Russia is a land of great commercial (for capitalism) potential. Every gallon of oil and gas pumped by Russia to the outside is like a splinter in the hand of the US and British Imperialists. They thought that was their role

Russia has been greatly weakened by the crimes of Stalin and Stalinism so the US see themselves as on a winner. The US does like soft targets

Putin is not a socialist or communist, in part he is a Stalinist but far more he is a strong national leader. His steadfastness in defending Russia is his strength. That is why the US Imperialists as described here seek to destroy Russian nationalism. This is what has been happening in Ukraine.

This article makes one great and unforgettable point which is: that these US Government forays towards what could end in world Nuclear War are driven not by “Neo-Cons” but by the whole of the US State, with support right across the Democratic and Republican “divide” in fact the whole of the US ruling clique with the great American people and their traditions of liberty silenced by a corrupt Media. The “NeoCons” argument so beloved by western liberals is finished.

“Meet the Americans…” is a great article and every class conscious worker and youth must read it. Every Jewish person also should read this because the Fascism of Hitler and the Nazis is not one of the Great Religious Mysteries. We understand very well its origin in a capitalist system in the insoluble crises of the 1920s and 1930s. The very same people like Samantha Power are also trying to destroy Israel as they are trying to destroy Russia.

(start article here)

Meet The Americans Who Put Together The Coup In Kiev—Chapter and Verse

by Contributor • April 7, 2014

by Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

If the US State Department’s Victoria Nuland had not said “Fuck the EU,” few outsiders at the time would have heard of Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, the man on the other end of her famously bugged telephone call. But now Washington’s man in Kiev is gaining fame as the face of the CIA-style “destabilization campaign” that brought down Ukraine’s monumentally corrupt but legitimately elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

Ray McGovern, who worked for 27 years as an intelligence analyst for the agency, mocks –

“Geoffrey Pyatt is one of these State Department high officials who does what he’s told and fancies himself as a kind of a CIA operator.

He tells Democracy Now that –

It used to be the CIA doing these things. I know that for a fact.“

Now it’s the State Department, with its coat-and-tie diplomats, twitter and facebook accounts, and a trick bag of goodies to build support for American policy.

A retired apparatchik, the now repentant McGovern was debating Yale historian Timothy Snyder, a self-described left-winger and the author of two recent essays in The New York Review of Books – “The Haze of Propaganda” and “Fascism, Russia, and Ukraine.” Both men speak Russian, but they come from different planets.

On Planet McGovern – or my personal take on it – realpolitik rules. The State Department controls the prime funding sources for non-military intervention, including the controversial National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which Washington created to fund covert and clandestine action after Ramparts magazine and others exposed how the CIA channeled money through private foundations, including the Ford Foundation. State also controls the far-better-funded Agency for International Development (USAID), along with a growing network of front groups, cut-outs, and private contractors. State coordinates with like-minded governments and their parallel institutions, mostly in Canada and Western Europe. State’s “democracy bureaucracy“ oversees nominally private but largely government funded groups like Freedom House. And through Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, State had Geoff Pyatt coordinate the coup in Kiev.

The CIA, NSA, and Pentagon likely provided their specialized services, while some of the private contractors exhibited shadowy skill sets. But if McGovern knows the score, as he should, diplomats ran the campaign to destabilize Ukraine and did the hands-on dirty work.

Harder for some people to grasp, Ambassador Pyatt and his team did not create the foreign policy, which was – and is – only minimally about overthrowing Ukraine’s duly elected government to “promote democracy.” Ever since Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office, Washington and its European allies have worked openly and covertly to extend NATO to the Russian border and Black Sea Fleet, provoking a badly wounded Russian bear. They have also worked to bring Ukraine and its Eastern European neighbors into the neoliberal economy of the West, isolating the Russians rather than trying to bring them into the fold. Except for sporadic resets, anti-Russian has become the new anti-Soviet, and “strategic containment” has been the wonky word for encircling Russia with our military and economic power.

Nor did neoconservatives create the policy, no matter how many progressive pundits blame them for it. NED provides cushy jobs for old social democrats born again as neocons. Pyatt’s boss, Victoria Nuland, is the wife and fellow-traveler of historian Robert Kagan, one of the movement’s leading lights. And neocons are currently beating the war drums against Russia, as much to scupper any agreements on Syria and Iran as to encourage more Pentagon contracts for their friends and financial backers. But, encircling Russia has never been just a neocon thing. The policy has bi-partisan and trans-Atlantic support, including the backing of America’s old-school nationalists, Cold War liberals, Hillary hawks, and much of Obama’s national security team.

No matter that the policy doesn’t pass the giggle test. Extending NATO and Western economic institutions into all of a very divided Ukraine had less chance of working than did hopes in 2008 of bringing Georgia into NATO, which could have given the gung-ho Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvilli the treaty right to drag us all into World War III. To me, that seemed like giving a ten-year-old the keys to the family Humvee.

Western provocations in Ukraine proved more immediately counterproductive. They gave Vladimir Putin the perfect opportunity for a pro-Russian putsch in Crimea, which he had certainly thought of before, but never as a priority. The provocations encouraged him to stand up as a true Russian nationalist, which will only make him more difficult to deal with. And they gave him cover to get away with that age-old tool of tyrants, a quickie plebiscite with an unnecessary return to Joseph Stalin’s old dictum once popular in my homestate of Florida: “It’s not the votes that count, but who counts the votes.”

Small “d” democrats should shun such pretense. Still, most journalists and pollsters on the scene report that – with the exception of the historic Tatar community – the majority of Crimeans want to join the Russian Federation, where they seem likely to stay.

Tensions will also grow as the US-picked interim prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk – our man “Yats” – joins with the IMF to impose a Greek, Spanish, or Italian style austerity. Hard-pressed Ukranians will undoubtedly fight back, especially in the predominantly Russian-speaking east. According to Der Spiegel, a whopping three quarters of the people there do not support the coup or government. What a tar patch! A domestic conflict that could split Ukraine in two will inevitably become even further embroiled in the geo-strategic struggle between Russia and the West.

On Planet Snyder, as in most Western media, these realistic considerations make absolutely no difference. Ideology rules, masked as idealism. Fine sounding abstractions fill the air. Ukrainians are making their own history. They are acting with great courage. They are seeking the rule of law and their rightful place in “European Civilization.” They are defending “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity.” Russians remain vicious. Big bad Vlad is the new Hitler. He is seeking his own Eurasian empire (as opposed to NATO’s), which could soon include parts of Moldova, Belarus, and Kazakhstan that the West needs like a “lok in kop,” a hole in the head. And those watching in the West must abandon what Snyder calls –

“our slightly self-obsessed notions of how we control or don’t control everything.”

The professor proclaims,

“It was a classic popular revolution. An undeniably popular uprising against “an unmistakably reactionary regime.“

Writing in The Nation, Professor Stephen Cohen shreds Snyder’s argument. My concern is more pointed. Popular uprisings deserve our support or opposition depending on who comes to control them and to what ends. As McGovern puts it,

“The question is: Who took them over? Who spurred them? Who provoked them for their own particular strategic interests?”

Detailed evidence provides the answers. For all the courage of the Ukrainian minority who took to the barricades, US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and his team spurred the protests in Kiev and exercised extensive – though never complete – control over them. Tactically, Pyatt and his fellow diplomats showed unexpected skill. Strategically, they should have stayed home.

Revolution on Demand

Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3, Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych. The grant was only $43,737, with an additional $4,796 by November 13. Just enough to buy the modest equipment the project needed.

Many of Hromadske’s journalists had worked in the past with American benefactors. Editor-in-chief Roman Skrypin was a frequent contributor to Washington’s Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and the US-funded Ukrayinska Pravda. In 2004, he had helped create Channel 5 television, which played a major role in the Orange Revolution that the US and its European allies masterminded in 2004.

Skrypin had already gotten $10,560 from George Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), which came as a recommendation to Pyatt. Sometime between December and the following April, IRF would give Hromadske another $19,183.

Hromadske’s biggest funding in that period came from the Embassy of the Netherlands, which gave a generous $95,168. As a departing US envoy to the Hague said in a secret cable that Wikileaks later made public,

“Dutch pragmatism and our similar world-views make the Netherlands fertile ground for initiatives others in Europe might be reluctant, at least initially, to embrace.”

For Pyatt, the payoff came on November 21, when President Yanukovych pulled back from an Association Agreement with the European Union. Within hours Hromadske.TV went online and one of its journalists set the spark that brought Yanukovych down.

Snyder writes –

“Enter a lonely, courageous Ukrainian rebel, a leading investigative journalist. A dark-skinned journalist who gets racially profiled by the regime. And a Muslim. And an Afghan. This is Mustafa Nayem, the man who started the revolution. Using social media, he called students and other young people to rally on the main square of Kiev in support of a European choice for Ukraine.”

All credit to Nayem for his undeniable courage. But bad, bad history. Snyder fails to mention that Pyatt, Soros, and the Dutch had put Web TV at the uprising’s disposal. Without their joint funding of Hromadske and its streaming video from the Euromaidan, the revolution might never have been televised and Yanukovych might have crushed the entire effort before it gained traction.

For better or for worse, popular uprisings have changed history long before radio, television, or the Internet. The new technologies only speed up the game. Pyatt and his team understood that and masterfully turned soft power and the exercise of free speech, press, and assembly into a televised revolution on demand, complete with an instant overdub in English. Soros then funded a Ukrainian Crisis Media Center “to inform the international community about events in Ukraine,” and I’m still trying to track down who paid for Euromaidan PR, the website of the Official Public Relations Secretariat for the Headquarters of the National Resistance.

Orange Revolution II

Preparing the uprising started long before Pyatt arrived in country, and much of it revolved around a talented and multi-lingual Ukrainian named Oleh Rybachuk, who had played several key roles in the Orange Revolution of 2004. Strangely enough, he recently drew attention when Pando, Silicon Valley’s online news site, attacked journalist Glenn Greenwald and the investor behind his new First Look Media, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Trading brickbats over journalistic integrity, both Pando and Greenwald missed the gist of the bigger story.

In 2004, Rybachuk headed the staff and political campaign of the US-backed presidential candidate Victor Yushchenko. As the generally pro-American Kyiv Post tells it, the shadowy Rybachuk was Yushchenko’s “alter ego” and “the conduit” to the State Security Service, which

“was supplying the Yushchenko team with useful information about Yanukovych’s actions.”

Rybachuk went on to serve under Yushchenko and Tymoshenko as deputy prime minister in charge of integrating Ukraine into NATO and the European Union. In line with US policy, he also pushed for privatization of Ukraine’s remaining state-owned industries.

Despite US and Western European backing, the government proved disastrous, enabling its old rival Yanukovych to win the presidency in the 2010 election. Western monitors generally found the election “free and fair,” but no matter. The Americans had already sowed the seeds either to win Yanukovych over or to throw him over, whichever way Washington and its allies decided to go. As early as October 2008, USAID funded one of its many private contractors – a non-profit called Pact Inc. – to run the “Ukraine National Initiatives to Enhance Reforms” (UNITER). Active in Africa and Central Asia, Pact had worked in Ukraine since 2005 in campaigns against HIV/AIDS. Its new five-year project traded in bureaucratic buzzwords like civil society, democracy, and good governance, which on the public record State and USAID were spending many millions of dollars a year to promote in Ukraine.

Pact would build the base for either reform or regime change. Only this time the spin-masters would frame their efforts as independent of Ukraine’s politicians and political parties, whom most Ukrainians correctly saw as hopelessly corrupt. The new hope was “to partner with civil society, young people, and international organizations” – as Canada’s prestigious Financial Post later paraphrased no less an authority than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

By 2009, Pact had rebranded the pliable Rybachuk as “a civil society activist,” complete with his own NGO, Center UA (variously spelled Centre UA, Tsenter UA, or United Actions Center UA). Pact then helped Rybachuk use his new base to bring together as many as 60 local and national NGOs with activists and leaders of public opinion. This was New Citizen, a non-political “civic platform” that became a major political player. At the time, Pact and Soros’s IRF were working in a joint effort to provide small grants to some 80 local NGOs. This continued the following year with additional money from the East Europe Foundation.

Rybachuk explained to the Kyiv Post that

“Ukraine has been united by common disillusionment. The country needs a more responsible citizenry to make the political elite more responsible.”

Who could argue? Certainly not Rybachuk’s Western backers. New Citizen consistently framed its democracy agenda as part of a greater integration within NATO, Europe, and the trans-Atlantic world. Rybachuk himself would head the “Civil Expert Council” associated with the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Committee.

Continuing to advise on “strategic planning,” in May 2010 Pact encouraged New Citizen “to take Access to Public Information as the focus of their work for the next year.” The coalition campaigned for a new Freedom of Information law, which passed. Pact then showed New Citizen how to use the law to boost itself as a major player, organize and train new activists, and work more closely with compliant journalists, all of which would seriously weaken the just-elected Yanukovych government. Part of their destabilization included otherwise praiseworthy efforts, none more so than the movement to “Stop Censorship.”

Rybachuk – a media expert” as well as civic activist – told the Kyiv Post in May 2010,

“Censorship is re-emerging, and the opposition is not getting covered as much. There are some similarities to what Vladimir Putin did in Russia when he started his seizure of power by first muzzling criticism in the media.”

One of Rybachuk’s main allies in “Stop Censorship” was the journalist Sergii Leshchenko, who had long worked with Mustafa Nayem at Ukrayinska Pravda, the online newsletter that NED publicly took credit for supporting. NED gave Leshchenko its Reagan Fascell Democracy Fellowship, while New Citizen spread his brilliant exposés of Yanukovych’s shameless corruption, focusing primarily on his luxurious mansion at Mezhyhirya. Rybachuk’s Center UA also produced a documentary film featuring Mustafa Nayem daring to ask Yanukovych about Mezhyhirya at a press conference. Nothing turned Ukrainians – or the world – more against Yanukovych than the concerted exposure of his massive corruption. This was realpolitik at its most sophisticated, since the US and its allies funded few, if any, similar campaigns against the many Ukrainian kleptocrats who favored Western policy.

Under the watchful eye of Pact, Rybachuk’s New Citizen developed a project to identify the promises of Ukrainian politicians and monitor their implementation. They called it a “Powermeter” (Vladometer), an idea they took from the American website “Obamameter.” Funding came from the US Embassy, through its Media Development Fund, which falls under the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Other money came from the Internews Network, which receives its funding from the State Department, USAID, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and a wide variety of other government agencies, international organizations, and private donors. Still other money came from Soros’s IRF.

New Citizen and its constituent organizations then brought together 150 NGOs from over 35 cities, along with activists and journalists like Sergii Leschchenko, to create yet another campaign in 2011. They called it the Chesno Movement, from the Ukrainian word for “honestly.

“Its logo was a garlic bulb, a traditional disinfectant widely believed to ward off evil. The movement’s purpose was “to monitor the political integrity of the parliamentary candidates running in the 2012 elections.”

This was a mammoth project with the most sophisticated sociology. As expected, the Chesno monitoring found few honest politicians. But it succeeded in raising the issue of public integrity to new heights in a country of traditionally low standards and in building political interest in new areas of the country and among the young. The legislative elections themselves proved grim, with President Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions taking control of parliament.

What then of all New Citizen’s activism, monitoring, campaigning, movement-building, and support for selective investigative journalism? Where was all this heading? Rybachuk answered the question in May 2012, several months before the election.

He told Canada’s Financial Post

“The Orange Revolution was a miracle, a massive peaceful protest that worked. We want to do that again and we think we will.”

He Who Pays the Piper

Rybachuk had good reason for his revolutionary optimism. His Western donors were upping the ante. Pact Inc. commissioned a financial audit for the Chesno campaign, covering from October 2011 to December 2012. It showed that donors gave Rybachuk’s Center UA and six associated groups some $800,000 for Chesno. PACT, which regularly got its money from USAID, contributed the lion’s share, $632,813, though part of that came from the Omidyar Network, a foundation set up by Pierre and his wife.

In a March 12th press release, the network tried to explain its contributions to Rybachuk’s Center UA, New Citizen, and the Chesno Movement. These included a two-year grant of $335,000, announced in September 2011, and another $769,000, committed in July 2013. Some of the money went to expand Rybachuk’s technology platforms, as New Citizen explained.

They wrote

“New Citizen provides Ukrainians with an online platform to cooperatively advocate for social change. On the site, users can collectively lobby state officials to release of public information, participate in video-advocacy campaigns, and contribute to a diverse set of community initiatives. As a hub of social justice advocates in Kiev, the organization hopes to define the nation’s ‘New Citizen’ through digital media.”

Omidyar’s recent press release listed several other donors, including the USAID-funded Pact, the Swiss and British embassies, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the National Endowment for Democracy, and Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation. The Chesno Movement also received money from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).

Figures for fiscal year 2013 are more difficult to track. Washington’s foreignassistance.gov shows USAID paying PACT in Ukraine over $7 million under the general category of “Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance.” The data does not indicate what part of this went to Center UA, New Citizen, or any of their projects.

What should we make of all this funding? Some of it looks like private philanthropy, as back in the days when the CIA channeled its money through foundations. Was the Soros and Omidyar money truly private or government money camouflaged to look private? That has to remain an open question. But, with Rybachuk’s campaigns, it makes little difference. USAID and other government funding dominated. The US Embassy, through Pact, coordinated most of what Rybachuk did. And, to my knowledge, neither Soros nor Omidyar ever broke from the State Department’s central direction.

Strategic Containment, OK?

When Ambassador Pyatt arrived in Kiev, he inherited Pact and its Rybachuk network well on its way to a second Orange Revolution, but only if they thought they needed it to win integration into Europe. That was always the big issue for the State Department and the Ukrainian movement they built, far more telling than censorship, corruption, democracy, or good governance. As late as November 14, Rybachuk saw no reason to take to the streets, fully expecting Yanukovych to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union at a November 28-29 summit in Vilnius. On November 21, Yanukovych pulled back, which Rybachuk saw as a betrayal of government promises. That is what “brought people to the streets,” he told Kyiv Post. “It needed to come to this.”

Euromaidan would become a “massive watchdog,” putting pressure on the government to sign the association and free trade deal with the EU, he said.

“We’ll be watching what the Ukrainian government does, and making sure it does what it has to do.”

That is where the State Department’s second Orange Revolution started. In my next article, I’ll show where it went from there and why.

Let us try to get some decent factual knowledge about Ukraine and Crimea.

First of all Leon Trotsky who is the essence along with Lenin of Russian Communism fought for Ukrainian Independence at the same time as he advocated Jewish Independence in a Jewish State in Palestine (in the thirties)

But not a Ukraine that would be a base for war against Russia. Trotsky had fought to defend Russia from just this in the Civil War period of 1918 to 1921. Every nation in the world has the right to defend itself as Israel did by knocking out the enemy war`planes in 67

The following is a useful article. it is useful factually which is what we want here on 4international. I think it has a fallacy when it talks about Kosovo.

This Washington Post writer and quoting The Guardian has a direct, total and complete lie. Let me quote this lie

“In The Guardian newspaper, Daniel Drezner has pointed out that NATO only intervened in Kosovo in 1999 after significant evidence of Serbian abuses was collected”

Those were lies. Those were NATO lies. it was the very opposite to this. NATO moved in with its power and behind NATO was the KLA ethnic cleansers.

Those lies persist and will persist until revolutionary power and action drives these lies out of circulation.

This is not a parallel but is the very opposite of Crimea. In Kosovo the majority of the people were Serb and then these Serb people were driven out of Kosovo by Jihad and replaced by Albanian Muslims. So the takeover of Kosovo by NATO/Jihad was a continuous war on Serbia and Serbs. Read the history of Crimea it has always been Russian. Why did Kruschev hand Crimea to Ukraine? Understand Kruschev and understand Stalinism.

(start extract from article here)

The collapse of the USS.R. has always been a bugbear for Putin: Not so much because he loved Communism, but because it seemed to mark the end of Russia’s time as a great power at the center of an empire.

In his speech, the Russian president returned to his anger over the end of the Soviet era. “Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones,” he said, “overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest, ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.”

The situation, he said, was especially significant in Crimea, which became part of Ukraine in 1954 at the “personal initiative” of Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev. “It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered,” Putin said.

Putin’s theory on Crimea’s place in Russian history makes some sense: The peninsula had been part of Russia from 1783 to 1954 and even under Ukrainian rule housed Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. It’s not always a pretty history, though: The entire Crimean Tatar population was deported during World War II, and a huge number are thought to have died. Putin touched on this in his speech, admitting that the Crimean Tatars were “treated unfairly” but adding that “millions of people of various ethnicities suffered during those repressions, and primarily Russians.”

Putin also neglected to mention that Crimea’s decision to remain part of Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union came in a referendum on independence in December 1991. In that election, 54 percent of Crimean voters favored independence from Russia — a majority, though the lowest one found in Ukraine.

Two of the most important events in post-World War II history were the division of Germany among Allied powers and the subsequent reunification of Germany after the Soviet Union’s collapse.

“I believe that Europeans, firstly Germans, will understand me,” Putin said during his speech, pointing out that Russia had supported German reunification when others hadn’t. “I am certain that you have not forgotten this, and I count that German citizens will support the aspiration of the Russian world and historical Russia to restore unity.”

It’s true that Russia did play a significant role in reunification negotiations after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, with Mikhail Gorbachev a key supporter of a tactic that allowed the two Germanys to negotiate on their own, without outside powers coming in until later. Regardless, it doesn’t seem as if Germany feels much gratitude here. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been a frequent critic of Russia’s stance on Crimea over the past few weeks.

After the fall of the Iron Curtain, Yugoslavia fell into a number of wars that eventually led the country to split into the states of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Montenegro and Macedonia.

Of particular note was the Bosnian war, which began in 1992 after a successful referendum on independence in the multiethnic region, despite a significant boycott by members of the Serbian minority and their attempts to establish their own state. After Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence, Bosnian Serbs, with the support of Slobodan Milosevic’s Yugoslav government, began a strategy of ethnic cleansing of Muslim Bosniaks and Croats in the eastern part of Bosnia. After the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995 (during which an estimated 8,000 unarmed Muslim men and boys were killed in a UN safe area), NATO intervened with a sustained air campaign called “Operation Deliberate Force” that attacked Bosnian Serb forces. Within months, a peace agreement was reached.

The breakup of Yugoslavia, and especially the Bosnian war, has an interesting legacy for Russia in light of the situation in Crimea. At the time, Russia contributed forces to help with the NATO-led peacekeeping efforts, but later events, including in Kosovo and the allegations that Russia was helping to hide Bosnian Serbs involved in atrocities, made it clear that Russia wasn’t happy with how things went.

In a key part of his speech, Putin contrasted the situation in Crimea with that of Kosovo, an Albanian-majority region of Serbia that was eventually recognised as independent in 2008.

“The Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent,” Putin said, “a precedent our Western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities.” He later added that the UN regulation on declarations of independence was “crystal clear, as they say.”

Putin is right that in some ways Crimea, with its Russian majority, does look a little like Kosovo, with its own Albanian majority. Both held successful referendums on independence against the wishes of the states they were a part of.

But what’s more significant than the similarities between Crimea and Kosovo are their differences. In The Guardian newspaper, Daniel Drezner has pointed out that NATO only intervened in Kosovo in 1999 after significant evidence of Serbian abuses was collected. Notably, while NATO military action wasn’t sanctioned by the UN, it did take place after the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1199, on which Russia had voted.

Perhaps more important, although Kosovo was a de facto independent state after NATO intervention, it didn’t formally announce independence until 2008. That’s almost 10 years between conflict and independence, rather than the mere weeks it has taken in Crimea. Even then, a significant number of states and organisations, including Russia, China and even the United Nations, have not recognised Kosovo as a sovereign state. Putin does have an argument, but it’s certainly not a “crystal clear” situation.

Ultimately, Putin’s appeal to history merges two strands of his political thought: The memories of a Russian empire that drive his plans for a Eurasian Union and his belief that the West’s international dominance is decadent and undeserved.

Where he trips up, however, is in arguing that history can act as a justification in the Crimea situation. History is often complicated and incoherent: Europe’s ever-changing borders don’t necessarily justify anything.

Remember that all of the wars that the US and the EU with NATO have been involved in have started out with threats of sanctions and with character assasination as is being used at present against Putin

So be prepared for what this threat as reported in The Washington Post actually means:

“He’s going to lose on the international stage,” Kerry said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” referring to Putin. “Russia is going to lose, the Russian people are going to lose, and he’s going to lose all of the glow that came out of the Olympics, his $60 billion extravaganza.”

KERRY MEANS BLOODY WAR ON RUSSIANS
This means bloody war on Russia. The US Imperialists are driven by capitalist crisis and think now it is time for a bloody war, to follow on from all of their other bloody wars, against the Serbs in Yugoslavia, against Saddam, against Mubarak, against Ben Ali, Gaghbo and most graphically against Gadhafi.

These threats are not to be taken lightly ever because the US and EU are driven by crisis. The capitalist system can nowhere create a decent future for man or our animal cousins

Make no mistake about this at all.

All of these leaders above underestimated just how dangerous is this US Government. Russia is bigger but it is very much in the sights of US and EU Imperialism

The US Imperialists and the EU Imperialists are making great use at this stage of Antisemitism. Consider this:

The US has pushed into position as Prime Minister of Ukraine a man who is actually a Catholic, but this man has Jewish relatives, and is being seen as a Jew heading the war against Russia. How dangerous for Jews with growth of Antisemitism is that!!

Meanwhile…The US is backing all of the time the Palestinian Arab cause, which is based on the Muslim Jihad. The US is continually working to carve up the tiny Israel and to force the Jews to give part of their tiny country to Jihadists. Without shame. At present Israel is the size of Munster, ONE QUARTER !!! of Ireland, and yet another state is to be carved out of that. If Israel opposes this then the US will condemn Israel…Result More Antisemitism in the world.

That was the same tactic that the US used against Milosevic and the Serbs. The tactic was to continually offer the Serbs the destruction of the Serbs and if the victim did not agree with their own destruction the US would continually attack them as being racists.

Exactly the same as is being done to Israel by Kerry and Obama

Now Kerry is wanting Russia to accept that Ukraine become a unified state which will immediately be a base for NATO

Thus Russia, just like happened to the Serbs and the Jews, is being put in the wrong. Once again it is agree to your destruction or you will be destroyed is the choice.

The US and EU uses the Islamist Muslim Jihad everywhere it can

It did so in Yugoslavia where it backed the Jihadist Izetbegovic and this led the US to organise the most ghastly attacks on Serb youth…including beheadings by the Jihadists on Serb Christian soil

And just last night again protected and encouraged by Kerry Muslim Jihadists unleash terror on Jews in Sderot. Hundreds of thousands of Jews dash to shelters against Jihad rockets, IN MARCH 2014!!!

Make no mistake…Kerry aims to unleash terror on Russia. Really a new form of Hitlerism.

What is Zionism? The answer of 4international.me is that Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and we defend it unconditionally.

But there is a problem with Zionist leaders as they presently are. They are totally in the pay of US Imperialism, at least all the blogs I read are so.

A very big name in these circles is one Caroline Glick.

Glick is Jewish, she defends Israel yes, but the problem is that she does so from a political position which is raging pro-Imperialist, that is pro-American Imperialist.

Position of Glick towards Obama…Obama is not Imperialist enough for Glick. Obama needs according to her to shake himself up and become more “Imperialist” on the world stage.

There is a lie here. Obama IS Imperialist. He is the President of the biggest Imperialist tyrant land the world has ever known, including the Roman tyrants.

The following advert on the David Horowitz Frontpagemag blog is a beaut and tells us all we need to know about Caroline Glick, because Frontpagemag are pure McCarthyites, pure and total “commie haters”

The above information shows that Glick is dragging her sorry ass into that venue and even if it takes a real idiot to fork out 75 dollars to listen to her mess, the real lesson is that she is there, in the very centre of US Imperialism and hatred towards Communism.

Of all the places in the world Glick should choose Horowitz Freedom !!! Horor…witz Centre!!!

I think this woman Glick is very devious. The Ukraine issue has been raging now for THREE weeks and Glick (like Geller and Spencer) has totally ignored it, even though hundreds of thousands of Jews are involved directly. That is sinister! That is cynical!

But we can predict her position. Glick will oppose Russia right down the line. Why… because she is a Jew second and an American Imperialist first.

This is an extract from the KEY article on this

Glick writes:

From Russia to Iran, from Israel to the Far East, Obama’s foreign policy calls for the US to appease its adversaries at the expense of its allies. At its core, it is informed by the belief that the reason the US has adversaries is because it has allies.

By this line of thinking, if the US didn’t support Israel, then it wouldn’t have a problem with the Muslim world. If the US didn’t support Colombia and Honduras, it wouldn’t have a problem with Venezuela and Nicaragua. If the US didn’t sup – port Japan and South Korea, it wouldn’t have a problem with China and North Korea. And if the US didn’t support Egypt and Saudi Arabia, it wouldn’t have a problem with the Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist offshoots, or with Iran and its terror armies.

The proper response to this worldview and its corresponding policy is a policy based on sup – porting US allies and opposing US enemies. It is predicated on the recognition that strong allies deter and weaken enemies.

paragraph 1…No the reason US has enemies is because the US is counter revolutionary in the extreme. By the way the US is an ally of Islam…all presidents were and thus are. Obama is no different fundamentally.

paragraph 2…Really is gibberish. Glick is generalising without having established any facts. For example Japan who was and is the aggresor against China, it is NATO and Ukraine which is the aggressor against Russia, it is the Muslim Jihad which is the aggressor against the Serbs and the Jews and all Presidents bar none have supported the Jihad

And so on…

paragraph 3…Glick simply wants the US to rule the roost.

In other words here we have a very prominent Jew in Israel who is in reality, and first and foremost, an attacking type Imperialist totally in the pay of US Imperialism

Bottom line pay 75 pavos to see this crock of shit in the David HORROR…itz Centre later this month. Imagine you can buy a Kindle machine for that!!!

Would not travel two centimetres to see her. Unless Jews throw out these US Imperialist people like Glick they are finished.

Cannot possibly win with US centric Imperialist Jews like this in the lead.

Right Sector squads will shoot the bastards on the spot. Then there will be order and discipline AND CALLING TO MIND THE HOLOCAUST IN THE UKRAINE THIS FASCIST SAYS “HIS HAND WILL NOT TREMBLE”

Right Sector Jew Killers with roots in the Holocaust say “‘I’ll be fighting Jews and Russians till I die’: Ukrainian right-wing militants aiming for power”

The Ukrainian Fascist and Jew Hating coup has left all the Israeli leaders silent. This expresses how bankrupt they are towards the Jewish people and the sacred trust that they hold towards Jews. People like Caroline Glick are supposed to lead, not to maintain silence!

Ukraine was the country where millions of Jews perished in the Holocaust. Why are these leaders silent today?

The reason they are silent on the coup is because they are in league with US and Antisemitic US Imperialism

The coup against the democratic government in Ukraine has been masterminded by the US regime of Obama, reference the “Nuland Tape” issue, where American diplomats were caught on tape planning and plotting to do exactly what has happened. It shows that the US is behind this coup in Ukraine as part of an anti-communist drive against Russia.

In fact Lenin and Trotsky, especially the Trotsky leadership of the Civil War to defeat the Whites, stopped a certain Holocaust of all the Jews in Russia in 1918-1923

Ted Belman of the Jewish group Israpundit keeps on his blog FOR YEARS a certain Fascist who calls for the murder of communists.

Meanwhile there is general friendliness in these circles to the new anti-communist McCarthy in skirts Diana West

The only sign of life in these Jewish circles today is in Jews News who to their credit has referenced the RT article below which shows up the Antisemitism in Ukraine that lies behind the coup, and that the US Government of Obama is behind it all.

Some of the RT article includes this:

…”I warn you, if anyone in this town, this area, engages in ‘lawlessness’ and looting, Right Sector squads will shoot the bastards on the spot. Then there will be order and discipline,” one of the radical nationalist opposition group leaders, Aleksandr Muzychko, said on Friday.

On February 21, when Berkut police officers arrived in the western Ukrainian town of Rovno from Kiev, Muzychko said that if he met them on a battlefield, his hand “would not tremble.”

“I would shoot,” the Right Sector leader declared in Rovno, where his supporters have already equipped themselves with Kalashnikov rifles.

“If tomorrow these bastards [police] in Kiev won’t stop, we’ll take over military units, get hold of armored personnel carriers and tanks – we know how to operate them – and go to Kiev. Victory will be ours,” Muzychko warned earlier this week.

Aleksandr Muzychko is a notorious nationalist leader. Back in 2007 he pledged to fight against “communists, Jews and Russians for as long as blood flows in his veins,” openly saying that leading the fight against all of the above mentioned groups is his “credo.”

Back in 1994, Muzychko, aka Sashko Bilyi, arrived in Chechnya to join separatist forces. He took part in numerous battles with federal troops, mainly in the capital Grozny, and personally knocked out three tanks, six armored personnel carriers and a SP vehicle.

According to media reports, he led an entire federal forces unit (presumably the marines) into an ambush. As a result, it was destroyed by the Chechen separatists. For his military merits, the notorious Chechen militant leader, general Dzhokhar Dudayev, presented Muzychko with a “Hero of the Nation” award.

Muzychko later served a term in a Ukrainian prison for racketeering and gangsterism, but he claims it was only for political reasons.

“The next president of the country will be from Right Sector! Our party will also be represented in parliament!” he once promised.

Rioters from far-right group “Right Sector” train in Independence Square in central Kiev, January 25, 2014. (Reuters / David Mdzinarishvili)

Rioters from far-right group “Right Sector” train in Independence Square in central Kiev, January 25, 2014. (Reuters / David Mdzinarishvili)

Further unrest among opposition groups

Even though the new peace deal on early elections and constitutional reforms reached between Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich and opposition leaders was finally signed, thousands are still protesting in central Kiev. Vitaly Klitschko, opposition leader and head of the UDAR party was booed when he portrayed the latest deal as “very important.” He even attempted to speak about the agreement during a recent memorial service for a protester killed during recent clashes.

Dmitry Yarosh, Right Sector radical nationalist opposition group leader, told protesters that the deal between the Ukrainian president and the opposition is unacceptable, saying their ultimate goal is Yanukovich’s resignation.

“The Right Sector will not lay down its arms,” the Unian news agency quoted him as saying. “The Right Sector will not remove the blockade of one of the government buildings until our most important requirement is fulfilled – the resignation of Yanukovich.”

The group rose to fame when its members, equipped with Molotov cocktails and bombs, clashed with police in central Kiev in mid-January.

A fighting training for opposition fighters from the Right Sector in a tent camp at Independence Square in Kiev. (RIA Novosti / Andrey Stenin)

A fighting training for opposition fighters from the Right Sector in a tent camp at Independence Square in Kiev. (RIA Novosti / Andrey Stenin)

Yarosh even proposes the liquidation of the pro-government Party of Regions and the Communist Party of Ukraine, calling them criminal groups whose activity must be stopped.

“Two anti-national groups have been acting this year in Ukraine, they are responsible for numerous misfortunes of the Ukrainian nation,” said Yarosh on his Facebook page, adding that these two groups are the Party of Regions and the Communist Party of Ukraine. He urged Right Sector members to stop the activity of these parties “by all means.”

Meanwhile, the so-called Spilna sprava (Common Cause) opposition movement is demanding that the Ukrainian Parliament, (the Verkhovna Rada) and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, all step down.

“Unfortunately, Maidan Square is not a safe place. My detention and custody were to have been decided upon within a few hours,” says the group’s leader Aleksandr Danilyuk, a lawyer and a rights activist who was earlier involved in campaigns against former President Leonid Kuchma, said on his Facebook page.

Dmytro Yarosh (C), a leader of the Right Sector movement, addresses during a rally in central Independence Square in Kiev February 21, 2014. (Reuters / David Mdzinarishvili)

Dmytro Yarosh (C), a leader of the Right Sector movement, addresses during a rally in central Independence Square in Kiev February 21, 2014. (Reuters / David Mdzinarishvili)

“I’ve finally reached London today. Will have to coordinate in exile,” he added.

Despite the absence of its leader, Common Cause has given an ultimatum to the Kiev prison service demanding freedom for all political prisoners. If their demand is not fulfilled, then will use force, they say.

“Tonight all political prisoners will be released. We have the power and means for it,’” said an official statement of the organization.

Just several months ago, Common Cause was hardly a household name in Ukraine. When President Yanukovich thwarted an integration deal with the EU in November in favor of closer ties with Russia, Common Cause activists joined mass demonstrations calling for closer ties with Europe.

On 25 January in a bid to demonstrate their might, they held the Energy Ministry for a few hours in Kiev. The event reportedly provoked strife within the opposition, with Common Cause activists ignoring the Udar party leader’s pleas to leave the ministry. The Justice Minister, Elena Lukash, then threatened to impose a state of emergency unless the radicals gave way. The ministry was only released after a telephone conversation between the Interior Minister, Vitaly Zakharchenko, and US Ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey

Video footage from the scene Monday showed the twisted shell of the blue trolleybus, with debris spread around it. The impact of the blast blew out the roof of the bus, as well as windows of several nearby houses. At least 15 people were reported to be wounded.

Based on the footage, the blast appeared to have occurred in the back half of the bus. It was most likely caused by an explosive left inside the vehicle, Russia’s National Anti-Terrorism Committee told RIA Novosti.

Investigators said the train station blast Sunday appeared to have been caused by a suicide bomber, who may have been female.

Markin told Ria Novosti that DNA testing will be carried out on the remains of the bomber, who used the equivalent of 10 kilograms of TNT in a device containing shrapnel. Investigators say they also found an unexploded grenade at the scene.

Video taken from an outside security camera shows a huge fireball inside what appears to be the main entrance of the three-story stone building followed by a steady trail of smoke coming out shattered windows.

The approaching Olympics

The deadly explosions come ahead of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, which is situated less than 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) southwest of Volgograd. The Games will take place between February 7 and 24.

Once called Stalingrad, Volgograd is a major rail hub in the region, and each day thousands of passengers pass through the station, many on their way to Moscow.

International talks over Iran’s nuclear programs resumed in Geneva yesterday amid the strident public opposition of Israel to the agreement being discussed and the continued threat of war against Iran. Negotiators for the P5+1 group (the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) met yesterday and talks will continue today.

END WSWS QUOTE

This statement from these Fascists on wsws is what must be immediately contradicted. They represent not in the slightest Trotskyism, Leninism, Marxism. They are the words of Fascists who are using the cloak of being leftist to pursue what is Antisemitism.

What is the wsws doing here? Why would they be attacking Israel and supporting the Mullahs.

I have a picture on file of the Mullah regime executing at one go ten prisoners. The prisoners are standing on two benches at right angles, and they all have nooses around their necks. The prisoners are looking outward to our right to one point. I take it they are looking at somebody reading a hateful condemnation.

They may be petty criminals. They may be political fighters. I do not know but every instinct in my body makes me oppose these Iranian Fascists in this regime. But not the wsws.org!

Israel is pressing the US and its European allies to demand the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear facilities, including its uranium enrichment plants and heavy water reactor at Arak. Tehran has repeatedly denied unsubstantiated Western and Israeli allegations that it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb.

Speaking to CNN on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the proposed agreement as “an exceedingly bad deal,” adding that it was “no secret” that many Arab leaders held the same opinion. “To give the most dangerous regime of the 21st century the world’s most dangerous weapons is a big, big mistake,” he declared.

Netanyahu’s statements are utterly hypocritical. Israel not only has its own stockpile of nuclear weapons, but, unlike Iran, has a long history of military aggression against its neighbours. Netanyahu hinted once again that Israel was prepared to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying: “We’ve been around for about 4,000 years, the Jewish people, and we are not about to let ayatollahs with nuclear weapons threaten that.” END QUOTE

AND THERE IS MORE

I repeat from the above what these wsws fascists masquerading as socialists, even Trotskyists, (that is totally horrible) write

Tehran has repeatedly denied unsubstantiated Western and Israeli allegations that it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb.

But in answer to this THEY ARE. They are building Nuclear Bombs. The whole world knows it. Obama knows it very well. Every Tom Dick and Harry knows it.

Moreover the other argument the wsws use…Yes Israel has the Nuclear Bomb, and Israel thank goodness has the Nuclear Bomb, because the Jews have to defend themselves against Antisemitism.

This is not words. The wsws is not a Trotskyist movement. Leon Trotsky would spit on them…this wsws.

We on www.4international.me will build the alternative. Of all the issues in the world today the first issue for socialists is to defend the Jews of Israel from another Holocaust. That means by every means do not allow the enemy of the Jews get the Nuclear Weapon.